GR L 9475; (October, 1914) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-9475; October 6, 1914
JOSE CALDERON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LA PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE PP. DOMINICOS DE FILIPINAS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Maria Cristina Calderon de la Barca, during her last illness, executed a will containing a legacy of P3,000 in favor of the defendant, La Provincia del Santisimo Rosario de PP. Dominicos de Filipinas, a religious order of Dominican friars. During that same last illness, she was confessed by Friar Ulpiano Herrero, a priest and member of the defendant’s community. She died the day after the confession. The legacy was paid by the estate’s administrator and received by the defendant. The plaintiff, Jose Calderon, an heir and son of the testatrix, filed an action to recover the legacy, contending it was void under Article 752 of the Civil Code because it was made during the testatrix’s last illness in favor of the religious community of the priest who administered the last rites. The trial court declared the legacy void and ordered its return.

The defendant raised two main defenses: (1) that Article 752 of the Civil Code had been impliedly repealed by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (2) that the plaintiff, by approving the administrator’s accounts and project of partition, had accepted the distribution and was thus estopped from challenging the legacy, rendering the matter res judicata.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Article 752 of the Civil Code was repealed by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the validity of the legacy due to his prior approval of the estate’s distribution.

RULING:
1. No, Article 752 of the Civil Code was not repealed by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that the two provisions address distinct subject matters and are not repugnant. Article 752 pertains to the substantive validity of testamentary dispositions made under specific circumstances (during last illness in favor of the confessing priest or his community), while Section 622 deals with the formal execution of wills, particularly the disqualification of witnesses who are beneficiaries. Both provisions can apply to the same will without conflict, as they govern different aspects. Since they are not irreconcilable, no implied repeal occurred.

2. No, the plaintiff is not estopped from challenging the legacy. The plaintiff was a minor throughout the probate proceedings and was not represented by a guardian ad litem. His subsequent approval of the administrator’s accounts, given while he was still a minor, did not constitute a valid ratification binding upon him. Moreover, the document he signed primarily addressed the reasonableness of the administrator’s fees and accounts, not the legality of the legacy. Upon reaching majority, he promptly filed the action. Thus, he retained the right to attack the void legacy.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, declaring the legacy void under Article 752 of the Civil Code and ordering its return. Costs were imposed on the appellant.